California v. Tua

A jury convicted Roland Seau of first-degree for the death of Louiegie Bermas; the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of Randy Lozano; assault with a deadly weapon on Lozano with the personal use of a knife and personal infliction of great bodily injury; and dissuading a witness, Vanessa Rivera. The jury found that each crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In a bifurcated proceeding, Seau admitted two prison priors, a strike prior, and a serious felony prior. He was sentenced to 102 years to life in prison. The same jury found David Tua guilty of aiding and abetting second-degree murder in the death of Bermas, and the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon on Lozano. He was also found guilty of dissuading a witness. The jury found that each crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In a bifurcated proceeding, Tua admitted a strike prior, a serious felony prior, and a prison prior. The court sentenced Tua to 75 years to life in prison. Seau and Tua contended the denial of their motions to sever the trials resulted in grossly unfair trials and a denial of due process. They argued on appeal the trial court erred by not bifurcating the gang element from the substantive offenses and denying their motions for mistrial after law enforcement witnesses repeatedly vouched for the credibility of a witness. In an issue of first impression, they also contended the court erroneously imposed a consecutive five-year prior serious felony enhancement as to the determinate sentence for assault with a deadly weapon, a count where sentencing was otherwise stayed. Separately, Tua argued there was no substantial evidence to support his conviction for second degree murder, attempted murder and assault. Seau argued the pinpoint references to his name in jury instructions were prejudicial to him. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that a prior serious felony enhancement imposed on a determinate sentence must follow the mode of sentencing imposed on at least one of the determinate counts. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded this case the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Tua" on Justia Law